news you won't find in the mainstream media

This week, when whistleblower website Wikileaks released over 90,000 classified documents portraying a dismal war in Afghanistan, the White House called editor Julian Assange and his organization a threat to national security. But it is this White House that is a threat to national security. Wikileaks simply helped prove it.

The war in Afghanistan is a disaster, something President Obama refuses to acknowledge and insists on continuing for no discernible reason. Afghanistan’s top commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal voiced his frustration with the mindlessness of our mission and lost his post. His replacement, Gen. David Petraeus isn’t any clearer about our prospects than his predecessor or the president. Who truly puts the nation’s security more at risk? A government that continues to put soldiers in harm’s way with no clear mission or strategy, as the bodies, dollars and questions continue to pile up, or a website that insists the general public should know what their government is up to?

What was it specifically that the Obama administration found among some 90,000 documents that compelled the White House to declare Wikileaks a security risk, mere hours after their release? Did Obama hire an army of speed readers? Or how about the most significant stories to come out of the Wiki-leak: That we pay Pakistan $1 billion a year to help the Taliban; that drone attacks are far less effective than portrayed; that significant civilian deaths are being covered up. Which of these is truly a massive security risk, domestically or abroad? Or do these stories simply “risk” damaging this president’s reputation, or perhaps simply the administration’s preferred war narrative?

Truth be told, the real “risk” is that Wikileaks dared to report the actual news, or what the New York Times calls, “an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official portrayal.” Ironically, the pro-war, any war hawks in both parties who still refuse to believe that Islamic terrorists target the United States not for our “freedom,” but for what we do in their homelands, are now warning of potential blowback over what Wikileaks has done. You see, dropping bombs and occupying countries for years could never incite hatred—but actually reporting the truth about the war could spark a jihadist revolution, as if jihadists don’t already know what’s going on in their own backyard, something an organization like Wikileaks simply believes everyone else should know about too.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is to make a keynote address this evening before the Annual Bohemian Club secret gathering – a lifetime achievement for a man who has long been groomed for power by the globalist elite.

The plutocrats will no doubt be eager to hear from the man that they hand picked to become California Governor in 2003, a fact that was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle at the time.

Schwarzenegger has since been a regular attendee at the Grove, but this will be the first time he has delivered a main event address at the elite hideout.

Another key note speaker at the Grove this year was Newscorp CEO Rupert Murdoch, who reportedly discussed “the future of news” earlier in the week, following revelations that his new paywall at the London Times has thus far resulted in dismal failure.

No doubt Murdoch had much to say about the rise of the alternative media and the blogosphere, and the threat to the elite monopoly on information that its exponential success constitutes.

Back in the 1970ies, Z. Brzezinski invoked in his Between Two Ages the theme of weather control, which he regarded as a form of broader social regulation. No doubt, the heavyweight of the US geopolitical thinking had to take interest not only in the immediate social but also in the potential geopolitical implications of influencing the climate. He was not the only author to probe into the issue but, due to obvious regards, information on the progress in the sphere of climate weaponry is unlikely to spill over secrecy barriers in the foreseeable future.

M. Chossudovsky, an economics professor from the Ottawa University, wrote in 2000 that in part the ongoing climate change could be triggered by the use of new-generation nonlethal weapons. The US is certainly exploring the possibilities of controlling the climate in several regions of the world. The corresponding technology is being developed in the framework of the High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program» (HAARP) (3), the objective being to build a potential to launch droughts, hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. From the military standpoint, HAARP is supposed to create a novel type of weapons of mass destruction and an instrument of expansionist policy which can be used to selectively destabilize environmental and agricultural systems of target countries (4). Technically, the system is known to be a set of sources of electromagnetic radiation affecting the ionosphere. It comprises 360 sources and 180 aerials having the height of 22 meters (5). Altogether the station emits 3,600 kW towards the ionosphere, being the world's most powerful system of the kind(6). The program opened in 1990, is jointly funded by the US Office of Naval Research and the US Air Force Research Laboratory, and is implemented by several university laboratories.

Far-reaching hypotheses arise naturally in the situation. Venezuelan leader H. Chavez was ridiculed for attributing the Haiti earthquake to the impact of HAARP but, for example, similar suspicions crept in following the 2008 earthquake in China's Sichuan province. Moreover, there is evidence that the US climate influence program not only spans a number of countries and regions but is also partially based in space. For instance, the X-37B unmanned vehicle orbited on April 22, 2010 reportedly carries new types of laser weaponry. According to New York Times, the Pentagon rejects any connection between X-37B and whatever combat weapons but recognizes that its purpose is to support ground operations and to handle a number of auxiliary tasks (7). The vehicle was built 11 years ago as a part of a NASA program which was taken over by the US Air Force 6 years ago and completely classified (8).

Demands to unveil details of the experimental program put into practice in Alaska are voiced both in the US and in several other countries. Russia never joined the chorus, but the impression is that efforts aimed at deliberate climate change are not a myth.

Two ways exist of looking at WikiLeaks, the site that publicizes secret military documents and videos. The first is held self-interestedly by the Pentagon and by Fox News, the voice of an angry lower-middle class without too much education. These believe that Wikileakers are traitors, haters of America, who give aid and comfort to the enemy and endanger the lives of Our Boys.

Implicit in the Foxian view is a vague idea that the leaks give away important – well, stuff. You know, maybe frequencies of something or other, or locations of ambushes or, well, things. Important things. The Taliban will use this information to kill American soldiers. The notion is vague, as are those who hold it, but emotionally potent.

The other view, held usually by people who have some experience of Washington, is that the Pentagon is worried not about the divulging of tactical secrets, but about public relations. WikiLeaks doesn’t endanger soldiers, insists this way of looking at things, but the war itself, and all the juiceful contracts and promotions and so on entailed by wars.

Which is obvious if you look at what the military (the president, remember, is commander-in-chief) actually does. Remember the military’s frantic efforts to suppress the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib, photos of prisoners lying in pools of blood while grinning girl soldiers play with them? These had zero tactical importance. They did however threaten to arouse the Pentagon’s worst enemy.

Mankind is slipping into a permanent coma according to a diabolical plan that has been public knowledge for over a century.

When The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were leaked in the 1890's, Masonic Jewish bankers did effective damage control.

They tricked the gullible goyim into believing it was a "forgery" written by "anti-Semites."

The bankers couldn't exactly admit the truth, that they were enslaving humanity, could they? ( Their whole system is based on deception and secrecy.)

Thus they turned the disaster into an advantage by using it to incite more "anti-Semitism."

In the Protocols, they boast that anti-Semitism is used to "manage our lesser brethren." They fund anti-Semites to ensure that all Jews are blamed.

By linking their demented conspiracy to all Jews, they used them as Trojan horse, human shield and human sacrifice. Many gentile anti-Semites oblige by blaming all Jews regardless of individual responsibility. (And these critics have great moral pretensions.)

I speak for Jews who oppose this secret plan which was concocted by Cabalist bankers and rabbis centuries ago and revised periodically.

Relations have never been good between the conservative movement and the neocons, on the one hand, and the traditionalist, “paleo,” or far Right, on the other. Wars of words pitting National Review, Commentary, and FrumForum against The American Conservative, Chronicles, VDARE, and, most recently, AlternativeRight have become legendary. There are no signs that anyone thinks a rapprochement is possible or desirable.

Among other venomous things said, the mainstreamers and neocons have often accused the traditionalists of harboring “anti-Semitic” sentiments.

As someone who’s written for both Alternative Right and VDARE, I decided to put together a symposium in order to confront these accusations head on. I submit that Jews and the traditional Right have a chance at reaching an understanding and reconciliation. And in order for this to occur, there must be a frank and open discussion about the relationship between the traditional Right and the Jews.

I decided to find out and asked for the frank opinions on the matter of three men who are synonymous with traditional American conservatism and the far Right: Taki Theodoracopulos, Srdja Trifkovic, and Paul Gottfried. I hope this is the start of a productive dialogue on this all-important topic.

The first question I asked is a simple one: Is the traditional right anti-Jewish?

If Obama is indeed leading America into socialism, the War Party that led us into Iraq can take a full measure of credit.

And what is the cost to the Iraqi people of a U.S. invasion and occupation and seven-year war, the end of which is nowhere in sight?

Perhaps 100,000 dead, half a million widows and orphans, 4 million refugees, half having fled their country, devastation of a Christian community that dated to the time of Christ and the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad.

Four months after elections, they have no government, and bombs that kill dozens still go off daily. And, when the Americans leave, a civil and sectarian war may return. The breakup of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines remains a possibility. The price of liberation is high.

On Tuesday, a $38 billion Treasury auction drove 2-years bond-yields down to record lows. (0.665 per cent) Investors are willing to take less than 1 per cent on their deposits just for the guarantee of getting it back. Bond yields are a referendum on the Fed's policies; a straightforward indictment of Bernanke's strategy. Three years into the crisis and investors are more afraid than ever. The flight to Treasuries is an indication that the retail investor has left the market for good. It is a red flag signaling that the public's distrust has reached its zenith.

Presently, big business is awash in savings ($1.8 trillion) because consumers are on the ropes and demand is weak. The government's task is simple; make up for worker retrenchment by providing more fiscal and monetary stimulus. If private sector and public sector spending shrink at the same time, the economy will contract very fast and recession will become unavoidable. So, Go Big; create government work programs, help the states, rebuild infrastructure and support green technologies. The economy is not a sentient being; it makes no distinction between "productive" labor and "unproductive" labor. The point is to keep the apparatus operating as close to capacity as possible--which means low unemployment and big deficits.

Increasing the money supply does nothing when interest rates are already at zero and consumers are slashing spending. Bernanke has added over $1.25 trillion to bank reserves but consumer borrowing, spending and confidence are still flat on the canvass. The problem is demand, not the volume of money. Bernanke knows what to do, but he refuses to do it. He'd rather line the pockets of bondholders, bankers and rentiers.

The cutbacks will ravage local governments, state revenues and public services. Emergency facilities by the Fed provided $11.4 trillion for underwater banks and non banks, but nothing for the states. The GOP is helping the Fed strangle the states by opposing additional aid for Medicare payments and unemployment benefits. Many cities and counties will be forced into bankruptcy while Goldman Sachs rakes in record profits on liquidity provided by Bernanke. It's a disaster.

The bottom line? When Wall Street is hurting, money's never a problem. But when the states are on the brink of default and 14 million workers are scrimping to feed their families, it's time for belt-tightening. Explain that to your kids.

Except for a very brief moment at the start of Defamation, a smart, mordant, and incisive documentary which examines the tendency of forces within contemporary Judaism to exploit the Holocaust for political ends, we never see the man behind the camera, Israeli Jew Yoav Shamir. One imagines, however, that this fellow had his poker face honed to perfection, because he was able to pull off a terrifically effective undercover job.

Clearly no fan of the Anti-Defamation League and like organizations, Shamir during the making of this movie managed to sell himself as a sympathizer, and somehow won the confidence of Abraham Foxman and other high-level figures within the ADL, who in turn seemed totally unaware that they were ultimately going to receive a cinematic drubbing at his hands. Indeed, one even almost sympathizes with Foxman and Co. for opening themselves up to the soft-spoken filmmaker from Tel Aviv with such touching, open-hearted naiveté; they must have figured that Shamir’s Jewish background and professed interest in exploring “anti-Semitism” must have meant that he could be trusted not to break from the party line.

And this is what truly sets Defamation apart from the average documentary: its delicate sense of poignancy. Shamir’s argument seems to be that indulging in paranoid delusion about the coming of a new Holocaust simply isn’t a good way for Jews, or anyone, to live. Hating those one takes to be one’s enemies and constantly fearing the worst from them may in fact be a self-fulfilling prophecy, bringing out the worst in everyone, oneself and one’s enemies alike. If Jews want to thrive and inspire good will from others, Shamir appears to be saying, they should eschew such a spurious mindset, and not dwell so much on bad things that were done to them in the past.

One wonders if Defamation will have any tangible influence on any of its target audience. But even if his work doesn’t significantly affect Jewish-Palestinian, or Jewish-Gentile relations, Yoav Shamir deserves praise for his courage in crafting such a provocative and fearlessly taboo-shattering, yet highly compassionate document on this most sensitive of contemporary topics.

Christians are told to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” The founders of the American Republic had few illusions about man and government.

Freedom, they insisted, depended on “jealousy,” not “confidence” or faith in rulers. They would have thought Obama foolish or cynical for demanding that we give our rulers the benefit of the doubt for good motives. Government, as they knew, is the natural enemy of liberty. They weren’t hypnotized, as later generations would be, by the word democracy. Nor were they terribly shocked by evidence of Original Sin.

Liberal high hopes for our first black president were a hangover from the naive old belief in the Noble Savage. Obama has banked heavily on that belief. Samuel Johnson, immune to every form of ideology, never fell for such emotional rubbish: “How small, of all that human hearts endure, / That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!”

The jingoism of democracy defies reason. Frequent headlines attest that elected rulers are no more corruption-proof than any others.

Nothing seems to disillusion Obama, however. He used to teach constitutional law; but if he ever read the Federalist, it appears to have been lost on him. His literacy is quite superficial. He barely knows what he is saying, and he never mentions the Tenth Amendment, the key to the whole Constitution. (Even Lincoln knew that much.)

But let's get real here for a moment - doesn't the reaction to Oliver Stone's comments prove his point? After all, his only crime is being candid. The media smear campaign from the Jewish community is simply the expected, predictable and automatic attack anyone speaking against Jews or Israel will suffer. Get real. The same exact thing happened to Helen Thomas when she had the temerity to ask the tough questions. This anti-Semite schtick is getting old, old, old!

Don't call me a Jew-hater, Jew-basher or any of that nonsense. I have Jewish friends and I intend to keep them. But I've got to call it as I see it - and there is either corruption, nepotism, or Zionism going on here.

Check out these links and make up your own mind whether or not a 2% segment of the population of America should hold such a high percentage of powerful positions. Do you think they talk? Do you think they have common goals? Do you think they share a common agenda?

I wonder if any of them feel a special loyalty to Israel - a loyalty that might affect their judgement when it comes to putting America FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD. (To quote a friend of mine.)

Showing complete disregard for the constitution, the rule of law, the democratic will of the people of Arizona, Clinton appointee Susan Bolton issued an injunction against the major aspects of Arizona’s law in federal district court. The Arizona Daily Star summarized the blocked provisions:

“Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped;

Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person's immigration status is determined;

Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry documentation;

Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident;

Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States.” [Judge blocks vital parts of Arizona immigration law, Arizona Daily Star, July 28, 2010]

It's a big win for Internet-based, indie media that WikiLeaks.org posted its "Afghan War Diary," based on 90,000 leaked US military records detailing a failing war in which US and allied forces have repeatedly killed innocent civilians. This on-the-ground material is vaster than the Daniel Ellsberg-leaked Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War and was much faster in reaching the public.

Throughout this decade of war, Ellsberg has been an evangelist beseeching government employees to engage in leaking and "unauthorized truth telling." His prayers have now been partially answered - with Assange boasting that the 2004-2009 Afghan war logs constitute "the most comprehensive description of a war to have ever been published during the course of a war."

If Ellsberg is the most important whistleblower in US history, Internet activist Assange is probably the most important aider and abetter of whistleblowers - using technology that Ellsberg couldn't have imagined as he labored over his now ancient Xerox machine.

Nearly 40 years after the Pentagon Papers were leaked by Democratic military analyst Ellsberg, a Democratic White House seems bent on public deception and cheerleading on behalf of an immoral war that can't be won.

The Monday, July 19, 2010, edition of The Washington Post featured an investigative report entitled "Top Secret America," with the subtitle, "A hidden world, growing beyond control." The report begins, "The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

"These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

In Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (July 23, 2010), Skousen writes, "The [Post] series has just enough tantalizing information to sell a lot of papers, but almost nothing that exposes the illicit side of US operations--a large portion of which is involved in recruiting, training, and running covert agents--only a small portion of which are spying on real enemies. A lot of spying targets our allies and patriotic Americans who the government worries could someday provide a source of rebellion against the growing totalitarian state."

Skousen further charges that there is a "dark side" to "each agency of [federal] law enforcement." This "dark side" involves "a lot of compartmentalization, front activities, hidden budgets and false stories in order to keep honest government employees and agents from knowing what's going on behind their backs."

The Washington Post report (for all its failures) should serve to remind the American people of just how vulnerable we are (and have always been) to totalitarian government, how fragile liberty and freedom are, and how necessary it is that we remain eternally vigilant to resist the machinations of power-mad Machiavellians in Washington, D.C.

The White House is screaming like a stuck pig. WikiLeaks’ release of the Afghan War Documents “puts the lives of our soldiers and our coalition partners at risk.”

What nonsense. Obama’s war puts the lives of American soldiers at risk, and the craven puppet state behavior of “our partners” in serving as US mercenaries is what puts their troops at risk.

Keep in mind that it was someone in the US military that leaked the documents to WikiLeaks. This means that there is a spark of rebellion within the Empire itself.

And rightly so. The leaked documents show that the US has committed numerous war crimes and that the US government and military have lied through their teeth in order to cover up the failure of their policies. These are the revelations that Washington wants to keep secret.

If Obama cared about the lives of our soldiers, he would not have sent them to a war, the purpose of which he cannot identify. Earlier in his regime, Obama admitted that he did not know what the mission was in Afghanistan. He vowed to find out what the mission was and to tell us, but he never did. After being read the riot act by the military/security complex, which recycles war profits into political campaign contributions, Obama simply declared the war to be “necessary.” No one has ever explained why the war is necessary.

The abnormally hot weather in the central regions of Russia has already caused serious economic damage. It has destroyed crops on roughly 20% of the country's agricultural land lots, the result being that the food prices are clearly set to climb next fall. On top of that, fires are raging over peat lands around Moscow. These days, the majority of forecasts concerning the climate are alarming: droughts, hurricanes, and floods are going to be increasingly frequent and severe. Director of the climate and energy program of the Wildlife Fund A. Kokorin says that the current trend is not a random phenomenon and should not be expected to subside (1).

In this particular context, the credibility of projections emanating from the Wildlife Fund, an influential international organization running worldwide operations styled as environment-protection programs, is beyond question (2). The reason is that the global warming which is the subject of heated academic (or, occasionally, absolutely unscholarly) debates is not necessarily an uncontrolled process. At least, the incidence of the current anomalously high temperatures exclusively in Russia and some adjacent territories invites alternative explanations.

Back in the 1970ies, Z. Brzezinski invoked in his Between Two Ages the theme of weather control, which he regarded as a form of broader social regulation. No doubt, the heavyweight of the US geopolitical thinking had to take interest not only in the immediate social but also in the potential geopolitical implications of influencing the climate. He was not the only author to probe into the issue but, due to obvious regards, information on the progress in the sphere of climate weaponry is unlikely to spill over secrecy barriers in the foreseeable future.

M. Chossudovsky, an economics professor from the Ottawa University, wrote in 2000 that in part the ongoing climate change could be triggered by the use of new-generation nonlethal weapons. The US is certainly exploring the possibilities of controlling the climate in several regions of the world. The corresponding technology is being developed in the framework of the High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program» (HAARP) (3), the objective being to build a potential to launch droughts, hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. From the military standpoint, HAARP is supposed to create a novel type of weapons of mass destruction and an instrument of expansionist policy which can be used to selectively destabilize environmental and agricultural systems of target countries (4). Technically, the system is known to be a set of sources of electromagnetic radiation affecting the ionosphere. It comprises 360 sources and 180 aerials having the height of 22 meters (5). Altogether the station emits 3,600 kW towards the ionosphere, being the world's most powerful system of the kind(6). The program opened in 1990, is jointly funded by the US Office of Naval Research and the US Air Force Research Laboratory, and is implemented by several university laboratories.

Daniel Ellsberg, a former US military analyst, has described the disclosure of the Afghan war logs as on the scale of his leaking of the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971 revealing how the US public was misled about the Vietnam war.

"An outrageous escalation of the war is taking place," he said. "Look at these cables and see if they give anybody the occasion to say the answer is 'resources''. He added: "After $300bn and 10 years, the Taliban is stronger than they have ever been ... We are recruiting for them."

However, the equivalent of the Pentagon Papers on Afghanistan - top secret papers relating to policy - had yet to be leaked, he said.

People could read the logs to discover what they now need to ask, such as what their money was being spent on, he said. They would have an effect on public opinion, but the question, Ellsberg said, was how they would influence the US and UK governments.

He compared them to the document leaked in 2003 by the GCHQ officer, Katharine Gun, which revealed how the US asked Britain to spy on neutral countries at the UN before the invasion of Iraq. The disclosure influenced the attitude of the neutral countries who refused to vote for the invasion.

The Wikileaks Afghanistan War Logs, publicly released today, highlight and corroborate what we already know about the “war on terror” – it is a vast and decompartmentalised intelligence operation.

The Pakistani ISI is a CIA front and controls terror cells at the discretion of the highest levels of the U.S. military-industrial complex.

There is a great need to perpetuate the mythical war on terror in order to maintain the pretext for the geopolitical genocide currently being undertaken by globalist advances into the middle east “rogue” (independent) nations.

As our governments assert that they are doing everything in their power to dismantle the global terror network, the reality is the exact opposite. The criminal intelligence networks assembled it, they sponsored it and they continue to fund it using our tax dollars. As any good criminal should, they have a middleman to provide plausible deniability. That middleman is the ISI and the military dictatorship of Pakistan.

The first clans organized around local police forces. The conservatives’ war on crime during the late 20th century and the Bush/Obama war on terror during the first decade of the 21st century had resulted in the police becoming militarized and unaccountable.

As society broke down, the police became warlords. The state police broke apart, andthe officers were subsumed into the local forces of their communities. The newly formed tribes expanded to encompass the relatives and friends of the police.

The dollar had collapsed as world reserve currency in 2012 when the worsening economic depression made it clear to Washington’s creditors that the federal budget deficit was too large to be financed except by the printing of money.

With the dollar’s demise, import prices skyrocketed. As Americans were unable to afford foreign-made goods, the transnational corporations that were producing offshore for US markets were bankrupted, further eroding the government’s revenue base.

Military investigators are checking computers used by Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst charged this month with leaking classified information, to see if he is the source of thousands of military documents published Sunday by WikiLeaks.

The material released by WikiLeaks relates entirely to the war in Afghanistan, while Pfc. Manning was stationed in Iraq. But investigators are trying to determine what material he was able to get access to and what material he transferred.

Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said investigators are looking broadly to determine where the material was taken from, but acknowledged that Pfc. Manning was a person of interest in the investigation. "He is someone we are looking at closely," Col. Lapan said.

WikiLeaks Sunday published thousands of secret U.S. military documents spanning more than five years. The information is in part humdrum and also dramatic, showing in raw detail the intelligence reports sent from personnel in the field. Among other things, the documents discuss civilian casualties, Pakistan's role in aiding the Taliban and the weapons capabilities of the Afghan insurgency.

As a result of Dana Priest’s three-part article, Top-Secret America, published in the Washington Post, pundits have been falling all over themselves in their rush to describe the size and implications of the elephant in the living room. Forget that none of these pundits has seen fit to write about the elephant before. More important is the fact that the elephant has dimensions Dana Priest never even touched upon.

In 1985, I was contacted by Larry, a CIA officer who had had a breakdown and wanted to talk to me. He had served as a deep cover agent overseas for over 15 years at that point. He had been recruited from the Marines in Vietnam, and given a fake life in which his father had been an Australian soldier in World War II, and his mother a Filipino who died in childbirth. The Australian soldier had abandoned the mother before she gave birth. The father had later died in World War II, and Larry, having been brought up in an orphanage, was adopted as an infant by a couple in the United States.

To make a long story short, after Larry’s breakdown, the CIA got him a job as a manager of a Playboy club in Detroit. Later they transferred him to Washington, DC, as manager of the Four Ways restaurant. When I met him there, his Filipino wife and entourage were staffing the facility, along with his CIA hand-holder, who handled finances.

Again, to make a very long story short, Larry explained that the CIA manages a parallel society to American society, where deep cover agents like him, as well as retired CIA officers and their agents, are provided with comfortable employment in their retirement years, or when they otherwise need recompense for their service. Many of these agents have no resume that is suitable in the modern professional world. So there is this parallel universe that they are folded into, as managers of the local Ford dealership, or Chinese restaurant, or hotel, or in hundreds and thousands of other jobs.

One weakness in Webb’s suggestion: most "diversity programs" are only indirectly (or covertly) "government-directed." For example, Bush AG Gonzales filed the 2007 Vulcan Society discrimination suit against the Fire Department of New York for using an objective hiring test on which whites did better than blacks and Hispanics. The Bush Administration’s demanded outcome was not an overt "government-directed diversity program," but the replacement of a good test with randomly bad hiring.

My view: The absolute key to getting immigrant ethnic elites to side with economic liberty is to take away, once and for all, the legal preferences that the government currently gives them.

Here’s what I think the GOP needs to do to as soon as it gets back into power save economic liberty (and itself): Eliminate all government racial and ethnic designations except African American and American Indian. The government must stop counting all categories other than the two main historical victims.

But once their ability to carve out legal privileges is gone, they will rapidly become less relevant. After the government stops bribing immigrant groups to declare themselves nonwhite, they will have less need of the Democrats. The Sammy Sosa Solution will begin to work.

When I first came across Rich Lowry’s column “Shirley Sherrod and American Progress,” I wondered whether I might have stumbled upon a parody of NR thinking written by Paul Gottfried in one of his lighter moods. Or perhaps Lowry had written it as part of an elaborate plan to induce severe indigestion in poor Paul, putting the tireless right-wing critic of conservative movement out of commission.

Regardless, even Lowry found it difficult to depict this well paid, well fed, and pampered federal bureaucrat as oppressed by angry white mobs. He thus chose to retell a sob story he’d read in one Taylor Branch’s turgid biographies of Martin Luther King Jr. about a black man who was attacked by mean, illiterate rednecks after he flirted with one of their white mistresses. Lowry then concludes,

Shirely Sherrod doesn’t seem to have a been a good bureaucrat -- she didn’t help the “superior”-talkin’ white farmer, even if she later felt that this was “wrong” -- and she has dedicated her life to something, one would think, Lowry opposes -- securing for blacks federal goodies, suing companies and the federal government on behalf of blacks, and securing for herself life-time employment as a black advocate. But it seems that by dent of her being black and Southern, she is connected to a to a long, storied history of righteous martyrdom, and as a good conservative of the reigning civic religion, Lowry is tasked with writing about her in hushed-tones.

Ilana Mercer reveals that, in many ways, the media’s lionization of Sherrod is a case of diminished expectations.

As the dissatisfactions of Americans with their national government grow, so does the likelihood of the breakup of the United States. I believe that most Americans can improve their well-being by ending the national government, that is, ending the Union. I believe that this goal should shape politics if politics is to do much good.

I don’t think Americans are going to be the first people in the modern era to initiate a large-scale anarchy. But Americans might conceivably move back to a federal form of government something like that under the Articles of Confederation. If so, the problem is how to proceed. Many Americans feel (and are) trapped and thwarted by government power.

I see two paths. Americans can do this either acting as individuals formed into a body politic of 300 million Americans or as 50 body politics organized by state. I think action by state has a better chance of success.

To act as one body, Americans would have to alter their Constitution. The divisions among Americans make this highly unlikely. Even if it were pursued, the results would be highly uncertain.

I like to think of federal programs being made optional at either the state or the personal level, but that means ending the Constitution or radically amending it. This takes me back to the other path of change: the States. This path looks more viable.

The Washington Post's Dana Priest demonstrates once again why she's easily one of the best investigative journalists in the nation -- if not the best -- with the publication of Part I of her series, co-written with William Arkin, detailing the sprawling, unaccountable, inexorably growing secret U.S. Government: what the article calls "Top Secret America." To the extent the series receives much substantive attention (and I doubt it will), the focus will likely be on the bureaucratic problems it documents: the massive redundancies, overlap, waste, and inefficiencies which plague this "hidden world, growing beyond control" -- as though everything would better if Top Secret America just functioned a bit more effectively. But the far more significant fact so compellingly illustrated by this first installment is the one I described last week when writing about the Obama administration's escalating war on whistle blowers:

Anyone who thinks that's hyperbole should just read some of what Priest and Arkin chronicle. Consider this: "Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications." To call that an out-of-control, privacy-destroying Surveillance State is to understate the case. Equally understated is the observation that we have become a militarized nation living under an omnipotent, self-perpetuating, bankrupting National Security State. Here's but one flavoring anecdote:

This world is so vast, secretive and well-funded that it's very difficult to imagine how it could ever be brought under control. That's particularly true given its inextricable intertwining with the private sector: the billions upon billions of dollars funneled from the Government to its private-sector "partners," which is the subject of the not-yet-published second installment of the Priest/Arkin article. As I wrote when examining the revolving public/private shuttling of former DNI and Booz Allen executive Michael McConnell:

That's really the only relevant question: how much longer will Americans sit by passively and watch as a tiny elite become more bloated, more powerful, greedier, more corrupt and more unaccountable -- as the little economic security, privacy and freedom most citizens possess vanish further still? How long can this be sustained, where more and more money is poured into Endless War, a military that almost spends more than the rest of the world combined, where close to 50% of all U.S. tax revenue goes to military and intelligence spending, where the rich-poor gap grows seemingly without end, and the very people who virtually destroyed the world economy wallow in greater rewards than ever, all while the public infrastructure (both figuratively and literally) crumbles and the ruling class is openly collaborating on a bipartisan, public-private basis even to cut Social Security benefits?

The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.

Longtime AMERICAN FREE PRESS copy editor John Tiffany was physically attacked by a supporter of Christian Zionist leader John Hagee outside the Washington, D.C. Convention Center late on the afternoon of July 21.

Tiffany, along with other staffers of AFP and supporters, was peacefully protesting Hagee’s appearance at the convention center. Also in attendance to support Hagee were several pro-Israel U.S. congressmen.

Tiffany was not the only person attacked by the Hagee follower. Also violently attacked was Medea Benjamin, the leader of Code Pink, an anti-war, pro-peace organization that has been critical of Israel’s behavior in the West Bank and Gaza.

Although a police officer was present and witnessed the incidents, he refused to honor Ms. Benjamin’s request that the Hagee supporter, who had fled into the convention center, be arrested. A further effort to contact the D.C. police by Ms. Benjamin resulted in the arrival of another police officer, but as this article was being prepared for this issue there still was no indication that the criminal had been taken into custody.

Michael Collins Piper (who witnessed the assault on Tiffany) noted: “The assailant’s name, based on his name tag, appeared to be Harold Lightstone and it appeared that he was from the state of New Jersey. The assailant was an older man, considerably taller and heavier than Ms. Benjamin, who is a slight, slender woman. The assailant used a heavy carrying bag—possibly laden with weights—which he wielded as a weapon, swinging it at Mr. Tiffany repeatedly, shouting angrily and loudly as he did so.

Unlike Greece and other EU members, which are forbidden to issue their own currencies or borrow from their own central banks, the U.S. government can solve its debt crisis by the simple expedient of either printing the money it needs directly, or borrowing it from its own central bank, which prints the money. The current term of art for this maneuver is “quantitative easing,” and Ferguson says it is what has so far “stood between the US and larger bond yields” – that, and China’s massive purchases of U.S. Treasuries. Both are winding down now, he warns, renewing the hazard of a sovereign debt crisis.

Market jitters may be a hazard, but if the U.S. finds itself with government bonds and no buyers, it will no doubt resort to quantitative easing again, just as it has in the past – not necessarily overtly, but by buying bonds through offshore entities, swapping government debt for agency debt, and other sleights of hand. The mechanics may vary, but so long as “Helicopter Ben” is at the helm, dollars are liable to appear as needed.

A true sovereign need not indebt itself to private banks but can simply issue the money it needs. That is what the American colonists did, in the innovative paper money system that allowed them to flourish for a century before King George forbade them to issue their own scrip, prompting the American Revolution. It is also what Abraham Lincoln did, foiling the Wall Street bankers who would have trapped the North in debt slavery through the exigencies of war. And it is what China itself did successfully for decades, before it succumbed to globalization. China got the idea from Abraham Lincoln, through his admirer Sun Yat-sen; and Lincoln took his cue from the American colonists, our forebears. We need to reclaim our sovereign right as a nation to fund the Common Wealth they envisioned without begging from foreign creditors or entangling the government in debt.

After about two and a half years during which the danger of war between the United States and Iran was at a relatively low level, this threat is now rapidly increasing. A pattern of political and diplomatic events, military deployments, and media chatter now indicates that Anglo-American ruling circles, acting through the troubled Obama administration, are currently gearing up for a campaign of bombing against Iran, combined with special forces incursions designed to stir up rebellions among the non-Persian nationalities of the Islamic Republic. Naturally, the probability of a new fake Gulf of Tonkin incident or false flag terror attack staged by the Anglo-American war party and attributed to Iran or its proxies is also growing rapidly.

The moment in the recent past when the US came closest to attacking Iran was August-September 2007, at about the time of the major Israeli bombing raid on Syria.1 This was the phase during which the Cheney faction in effect hijacked a fully loaded B-52 bomber equipped with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles, and attempted to take it to the Middle East outside of the command and control of the Pentagon, presumably to be used in a colossal provocation designed by the private rogue network for which Cheney was the visible face. A few days before the B-52 escaped control of legally constituted US authorities, a group of antiwar activists issued The Kennebunkport Warning of August 24-25, 2007, which had been drafted by the present writer.2 It was very significant that US institutional forces acted at that time to prevent the rogue B-52 from proceeding on its way towards the Middle East. The refusal to let the rogue B-52 take off reflected a growing consensus in the US military-intelligence community and the ruling elite in general that the Bush-Cheney-neocon policy of direct military aggression towards all comers had become counterproductive and very dangerous, running the risk of a terminal case of imperial overstretch.

A prominent spokesman for the growing disaffection with the neocons was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been a national security director in the Carter administration. Brzezinski argued that no more direct military attacks by the United States should be made for the time being, and that US policy should rather focus on playing off other states against each other, while the US remained somewhat aloof. Brzezinski’s model was always his own successful playing of the Soviet Union against Afghanistan in 1979, leading to the collapse of the Soviet empire a decade later. A centerpiece of Brzezinski’s argument was evidently the claim that color revolutions on the model of Ukraine 2004 were much a better tool than the costly and dangerous US bombing and US invasion always championed by the monomaniacal neocons. There was clearly an implication that Brzezinski could deliver a color revolution in Iran, as he had done in Ukraine.

Following our article yesterday detailing the threat of a false flag cyber attack as a pretext to restrict the free Internet, the term ‘false flag cyber attack’ was sent to the top of the Google Trends charts:

In the space of under one week, we have seen multiple terms we have asked our readers and Alex Jones Show listeners to popularize shoot to the top of these rankings, leap frogging the mindlessness that usually permeates, and bringing important issues to a wider audience.

Though Google has attempted to censor some of these “volcanic” terms, our readers and listeners have demonstrated the power we can have via the net when we operate collectively.

Of course, this highlights the great threat to freedom that any attack on the Internet represents.

We must continue to inject into the public consciousness the fact that any attempt to equate the over inflated threat of cyber terrorism with a need to overhaul and restrict the Internet by government and it’s corporate arms represents another phony problem-reaction-solution agenda on behalf of those that are threatened by the incredible awakening and enhancement of knowledge that the Internet has enabled.

No sooner was the bill signed than there were emails from Obama operatives flying around the country claiming credit for an achievement that looked unlikely for months, sustained the heaviest Lobbyist attack in history, and won praise from all the advocacy groups who realized that while the bill was flawed, rationalized it as the best they could squeeze out of Congress in this climate.

Republicans are predicting it will lead to job losses. Minority leader Mitch McConnel regurgitated a familiar mantra saying, "The White House will declare this bill a victory. But for millions of Americans struggling to find work, for millions of small-business owners bracing themselves for all the new regulations they'll have to deal with, for ordinary Americans who just wanted to see an end to the bailouts, this bill is no victory."

Now, the businesses that could be regulated under the bill are launching an effort to reform the Reform bill-- their way—to make sure the rules that are still to be written will not be too hard on them.

The Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable have their hatchets out by continuing the full court press lobbying effort that did force compromises in the bill. Of course, they position what they are doing only in the most positive light.

Many banks are falsifying their earnings but still considered too big to fail.

My view they are not too big to jail, yet there is no public pressure from progressives for the prosecution of Wall Street criminals as I call for in my film PLUNDER.

On Monday, the Department of Agriculture demanded the resignation of Shirley Sherrod over a two-minute videotape where she appeared to describe to a cheering crowd of the Georgia NAACP how she denied assistance to a poor white farmer about to lose his land.

Declaring itself "appalled" at this "shameful" act of racism, the NAACP said it would investigate the Georgia crowd that cheered her and praised the Department of Agriculture for firing her.

On Wednesday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was begging for Sherrod's forgiveness, and the NAACP was burbling apologies.

For the video turned out to be an excerpt from a speech in which Sherrod described her growth from a bitter black woman whose father was murdered by a white man into one who found joy helping poor white folks keep their farms.

What was it that caused the rush to judgment by Vilsack, the NAACP and a White House that supported the ouster of Sherrod without talking to her or viewing the full tape?

Panic. The White House fears it is losing white America because of a false perception that it harbors a bias against white America.

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice have filed a motion in federal court indicating that Congress has been notified officially of corruption allegations involving the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.

The motion further substantiates a prior report by Narco News published July 4 that revealed at least one Congressional committee has launched an investigation into alleged CIA and State Department deceptions that surfaced in a lawsuit accusing officials from those agencies of spying on a DEA agent.

The plaintiff in the case, now-retired DEA agent Richard Horn, earlier this year struck a deal with government attorneys to settle a 16-year-long legal battle in which Horn accused CIA and State Department officials of spying on him and sabotaging his anti-narcotics mission in Burma — now known as Myanmar. The lawsuit was hidden from public view for more than a decade because the CIA invoked the “state secrets privilege,” claiming the litigation implicated national security.

The CIA’s claims, however, were later shown to be bogus, prompting Judge Royce Lamberth last year to unseal the case. In addition to the deception played on the court by the CIA with respect to the unwarranted national security claims, evidence also surfaced in the case that management at both the State Department and CIA’s Inspector General offices pressured their investigators to falsify reports that were favorable to Horn.

China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) will soon deploy its own carriers, but among other things, China must decide what kind of carriers to build, and, if the US model for naval warfare with its dependence on huge super-carriers and carrier battle groups (CBGs) is the right one for China.

The first PLAN carrier is expected to have the keel laid by the end of 2010. A second hull should follow within a year. Both will rely on a ski-jump flight deck configuration, and not the steam catapult-based launch systems used on US carriers.

As for China's purchase in 1998 of the 67,000-ton Ukrainian-built Varyag, it is currently being fitted in the port of Dalian. It will likely serve as a carrier training platform for pilots flying J-15 aircraft until the indigenous PLAN carriers are commissioned around 2014.

"China is more likely to have smaller, less capable carriers suited to air support of surface action groups that are carrying out missions such as sea-lane security beyond the range of land-based air from Chinese bases," said McVadon. "The USN is not a model for the PLAN. Chinese leaders do not contemplate an ability to conduct massive air strikes against naval forces or targets ashore. Carrier aviation as done by the USN does not serve China's purposes. Having organic air available to PLAN units trying to deter attacks on tankers en route to China does make sense."

At last! It took a year, but the Washington Post and the New York Times have finally done (grudging) stories about the Justice Department’s scandalous dismissal of the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

Indeed, even the Los Angeles Time editorialized about the testimony of former career lawyer Christian Adams before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, going so far as to admit that the Department’s handling of this case “raises larger questions,” although they then claims that “so far the case hasn’t been made” that this was handled inappropriately or that “the department is hostile to white voters whose right are violated.”

The Los Angeles Times is wrong that the case hasn’t been made. Adams’s testimony is both credible and shocking, but more importantly, it has not been refuted at all by the Justice Department. DOJ has told the press that it is only “conservatives” who are concerned over this matter, which is beside the point, and not true in any case.

Adams’s testimony is also completely in accord with my own experiences as a career lawyer in the Civil Rights Division of Justice for four years (and other former Division lawyers who were interviewed by Pajamas Media). In fact, I filed an affidavit with the Civil Rights Commission today confirming parts of Adams’s testimony of which I have personal knowledge. That includes the overt hostility that was shown by other career lawyers in the Voting Section, including its former chief, Joseph Rich, to the first ever Voting Rights Act enforcement case the Division filed against black defendants, when I was still at Justice.

The Washington Post published yesterday the first of three large reports by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin on the dimensions of the gigantic U.S. apparatus of “intelligence” activities being undertaken to combat terrorist acts against the United States, such as the 9/11 attacks. To say that this activity amounts to mobilizing every police officer in the country to stop street fights in Camden only begins to suggest its almost unbelievable disproportion to the alleged threat.

As Priest and Arkin report, “The U.S. intelligence budget is vast, publicly announced last year as $75 billion, 2 ½ times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001. But the figure doesn’t include many military activities or domestic counterterrorism programs.” Virtually everyone the reporters consulted told them in effect that “the Bush administration and Congress gave agencies more money than they were capable of responsibly spending.” To be sure, they received more than they could spend responsibly, but not more than they were eager to spend irresponsibly. After all, it’s not as if they were spending their own money.

Why would these hundreds of organizations and contracting companies be willing to take gigantic amounts of the taxpayers’ money when everyone agrees that the money cannot be spent sensibly and that the system already in place cannot function effectively or efficiently to attain its ostensible purpose? The question answers itself. It’s loot for the taking, and there has been no shortage of takers. Indeed, these stationary bandits continue to demand more money each year.

What we see here is not really an “intelligence” or counterterrorism operation at all. It’s a rip-off, plain and simple, fed by irrational fear and continually stoked by the government plunderers who are exercising the power and raking in the booty to “fight terrorism.”

For the last decade, America has been shuffling its entire military, including hundreds of thousands of private contractors, in and out of the Middle East on little more than a “snipe hunt.” Time for a reality check. Iraq never attacked the US. Reports say Al Qaeda may have fewer than 30 men in Afghanistan.

The Taliban has been asking for a cease fire for months. Turkey and Brazil negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran ending any possible threat, one we strangely, very strangely ignored. “Thermo-nuclear Israel’s” continual whining and manipulation is wearing thin. America’s economy, her Army and her suffering veterans demand an end to our Bush era phony war.

General Petraeus is now in Afghanistan. The endless games, paying the Taliban for security, protecting drug dealers and propping up a failed dictatorship can come to an end. OK, some news; the Taliban is sick of the war and ready to settle. The only thing keeping the war going is the Karzai brothers and their business partners. They aren’t worth it, they aren’t America’s allies, they are hated in Afghanistan and they need to be ‘retired’ to the south of France. I suspect they will be able to live quite well, no financial help needed.

Iran isn’t the problem, it never was. Since the 1960s, America has been running interference for Israel’s territorial ambitions. They are now occupying part of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and what had been 4 million Muslim and Christian residents of Palestine are now 1.5 million Gaza detainees and 2.5 million refugees. Iran had already agreed to a proposal from Turkey and Brazil that would have gotten rid of any nuclear material that may have been used for a weapon, a “workable” deal that seems to have been opposed only because it is preventing a war that Israel wants.

Of course, Israel wants to attack Iran while hundreds of thousand of American troops are standing by. America’s occupation of the Middle East has proven to be a destabilizing influence for sure, making war on a whim attractive, a war really being fought as in Afghanistan over money, always oil and gas, drugs or arms profiteering. Without America’s military power, her ability to project force in the Middle East, a capability put in place after the first Gulf War, history might be very different.

JournoList scandal is back and prepare for it to be a driving force in the news for quite some time. The Daily Caller published an article tonight indicating they’ve obtained emails from the JournoList and the initial details are as damning as we expected when the list-serv, founded by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein in 2007, surfaced with the Dave Weigel kerfuffle last month.

Snippets from the article below, but make sure to read the whole thing at the Daily Caller and return to Big Journalism early and often as we unpack the details that emerge and track the fallout from this seminal event in the history of left-wing media bias. It’s unclear exactly what the Daily Caller has, but there’s certainly no indication from this article they’ve already laid all their cards out on the table.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

When investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker broke the story four years ago that a DC-9 (N900SA) "registered to a company which once used as its address the hangar of Huffman Aviation, the flight school at the Venice, Florida Airport which trained both terrorist pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, was caught in Campeche by the Mexican military ... carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine destined for the U.S.," it elicited a collective yawn from corporate media.

And when authorities searched the plane and found its cargo consisted solely of 128 identical black suitcases marked "private," packed with cocaine valued at more than $100 million, the silence was deafening.

But now a Bloomberg Markets magazine report, "Wachovia's Drug Habit," reveals that drug traffickers bought that plane, and perhaps fifty others, "with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the U.S.," Wachovia and Bank of America.

The Justice Department charge sheet against the bank tells us that between 2003 and 2008, Wachovia handled $378.4 billion for Mexican currency exchanges, "the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history."

That’s a popular sign at Tea Party rallies. But it’s a firm sentiment among those who understand The National Question and have experienced its truth when discussing, no matter how innocently, any issue involving race or ethnicity.

If you’re white, and refuse to accept President Barack Hussein Obama’s rhetorical usurpation of your country, you’re a racist. If you’re white, and you refuse to accept Mexican immigration’s destruction of your neighborhood, you’re a racist. If you’re white, you oppose the Islamification of America because you believe the United States is at least historically a nation built upon the foundation of Christianity, you are, again, a racist.

So the "Conservative" Establishment which ought to oppose this, has long learned to shut up and keep to their talking points about "fiscal responsibility," "constitutionally limited government" and "free markets." Now the national Tea Party movement has followed suit. Those slogans, along with a fierce-looking Paul Revere in silhouette, emblazon the internet banderole of the National Tea Party Federation—which has recently, amid much publicity, banished talk show host Mark Williams , leader of the based Tea Party Express, to the outer darkness.

Williams, you see, dared ridicule the NAACP—that group of black professional shakedown artists who see a racist under every bed.

After 16 months, perhaps the best one can say for the Tea Party is that the contempt it originally provoked within the American establishment has turned to consternation. If the Tea Party were composed of real Indians, the elite would be understanding, if not exactly encouraging, and not in the least alarmed or offended. Since, however, the modern Tea Partiers are only white people got up in paint and feathers, the American ruling class finds itself compelled, by its own prejudices, neuroses, and—it may be—fears, to recognize a potentially dangerous threat.

The Tea Party, whatever its influence at present and no matter what its future may be, probably has less importance as a political agent than as a sign of the times, and perhaps even a bellwether. Something in America has changed since the election and inauguration of President Barack Obama, and the Tea Party is a symptom of that change. The first and most obvious cause is the fact of the United States having elected her first mulatto president since the founding of the Republic more than two centuries ago. The issue is less the President’s blackness than the alien quality his color, fairly or unfairly, gives him. One need not be “racist” to respond to newspaper photographs and film footage of Obama, standing behind a podium bearing the presidential seal, with feelings of simple incredulity. For such incredulity, Obama is hardly to blame. He is, however, entirely blamable for his inability, or perhaps his refusal, to foresee the likelihood—indeed, the inevitability—of such a reaction on the part of the white majority population, and therefore for his failure to make account for it. No doubt, that failure is thanks in large part to his own self-bamboozlement, and to the self-delusion of his entourage, allowing the Obama campaign to fall for its own sentimental propaganda about the coming of a new postracial America. As journalistic commentators have been pointing out ever since, no such color-blind animal in fact exists, yet the President and all his men have continued to act as if the species had already been verified, awarded a taxonomic name, and set down in the pertinent scientific literature.

The Tea Party, as I have said, is not an agent of political change. It is an expression of a widespread popular demand for a kind of political and social reformation that has yet even to begin to be formulated in a conscious and deliberate way and coupled to a political vehicle devised more or less expressly for itself: a collection of loosely affiliated raiding parties, not an organized army fighting for a determined collective goal. Thus, the need seems to be for the eventual identification of some such goal, and the creation of a political movement capable of achieving it. The Tea Party, and whatever friends and allies it may succeed in scrounging up for itself, are unlikely to create a true political party and less likely still ever to control the government, while the prospect of their establishing a ruling elite, as Sam Francis hoped his Middle American Radicals might do someday, is a near social and political impossibility. The New Class rules because it is necessary to the New America it has created, and, so long as the New America survives, the New Class has nothing finally to fear from the Tea Party and its sympathizers. This raises the great question whether the New America is actually sustainable, socially, economically, and politically speaking; or whether, as Edward Abbey put it 30 years ago, our only hope might not be catastrophe.

A controversial billboard comparing the "change" of U.S. President Barack Obama with Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin raised a few eyebrows before it was papered over one day after it appeared in Mason City, Iowa. The billboard suggests that Obama is a radical socialist leader similar to Hitler and Lenin. This is, in fact, a true comparison, which is probably why it was papered over so quickly. Obama, Hitler, and Lenin were all initially financed by Rothschild money. If we look at the historical record, we can clearly see that all three leaders were originally puppets of the House of Rothschild.

President Obama was cultivated and created as a candidate since the early 1990s by Jewish capital to serve Zionist interests, something I have written a great deal about. It is remarkable that this controversial billboard appeared in Iowa, the same state where the dark horse candidate Obama came from behind to win - after the rigged caucus in which the caucus votes were tallied telephonically by Voxeo, a company connected to Israeli military intelligence.

A recent Israeli interview with President Obama shows his Zionist colors well:

YONIT LEVI: So that fear, the tangible fear that some Israelis have that their best ally in the world might abandon them is —

OBAMA: Well, it’s pretty hard to square with the fact that not only have I in every speech that I’ve ever given talked about the unbreakable bond to Israel, not only did I describe that special relationship and condemn those who would try to drive a rift between us in Cairo in front of a Muslim audience, but if you look at our actions — and Prime Minister Netanyahu will confirm this, and even critics I think will have to confirm that the United States under my administration has provided more security assistance to Israel than any administration in history. And we’ve got greater security cooperation between our two countries than at any time in our history. And the single most important threat to Israel — Iran, and its potential possession of a nuclear weapon — has been my number one foreign policy priority over the course of the last 18 months.

ALIPAC is releasing a new video today that Americans are unlikely to see on the major networks since it displays overt racism and militancy against Americans and Tea Party supporters at the hands of illegal alien supporters who aggressively announce "You're too white to be American! Go back to Europe!"

While there is so much talk in the media about the NAACP and Michelle Obama's false assertions that the Tea Party is racist, combined with news that the White House moved to protect the New Black Panther members. These same members were previously filmed screaming 'kill some crackers... kill some of their babies' and threatened white voters with weapons in Philadelphia, so it is unlikely you will see this video on CBS, ABC, CNN, or NBC!

A decade ago, activist Ron Unz conducted a study of the ethnic and religious composition of the student body at Harvard.

Blacks and Hispanics, Unz found, were then being admitted to his alma mater in numbers approaching their share of the population.

And who were the most underrepresented Americans at Harvard?

White Christians and ethnic Catholics. Though two-thirds of the U.S. population then, they had dropped to one-fourth of the student body. [Some Minorities Are More Minor than Others, Ron K. Unz, Wall Street Journal, November 16, 1998]

Comes now a more scientific study from Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford to confirm that a deep bias against the white conservative and Christian young of America is pervasive at America's elite colleges and Ivy League schools.

That such bigotry is pervasive in 2010 at institutions that preen about how progressive they are is disgusting. That a GOP which purports to represents Middle America, whose young are bearing the brunt of this bigotry, has remained largely silent is shameful.

The crisis affecting Europe is nothing new. It goes back three years and the beginning of the credit crisis, 60% of the subprime CDOs, collateralized debt obligations, had been sold to European institutions. These were the mortgage bonds, which contained a variety of toxic waste, which the rating agencies, S&P, Moody’s and Fitch, in collusion with banks and brokerage houses, had sold as AAA bonds, when in fact their ratings should have been considerably lower. The holders of these bonds in many instances became insolvent and had to be bailed out by capital injections from central banks, most of the funds were lent by the Federal Reserve.

These debt problems, as in the US, have never been resolved. Those companies and institutions have over the past three years been allowed to keep two sets of books.

Six months ago the Greek crisis arose adding another financial and economic problem not only for Greece, but also for four other euro zone members and their debt holders, namely banks and other sovereign debt holders.

You might say the current additional crisis was frosting on the cake, because unbeknownst to most, Europe has never emerged from its original crisis. We have now an internal bank and sovereign debt crisis combined. What is of passing interest is that the raters and sellers of the toxic waste, that started all this, have never been prosecuted nor pursued civilly.

Alex Jones is on high-alert after someone managed to compromise the “ChangeDaChannel” You Tube account and criminally remove the most-viewed version of “The Obama Deception” available online, which had more than 6.5 million views and whose URL link ranked among the top of all “Obama” related searches.

The channel’s owner was tipped-off about the breach, and was subsequently able to change the password and prevent further deletions of Alex Jones and other patriot documentaries. Both he and members of the Infowars staff believe the video could have only been pulled from behind the scenes at Google or by a government-level cybersecurity admin with access to YouTube records, as the passwords were carefully guarded and unlikely to be guessed at.

The film, which has been attacked before, was censored at a critical time. Just one day before on Friday’s broadcast, Alex challenged activists to drive “Obama Deception” up in the search engines. Only a few hours later, Google trends rankings revealed that it was the #1 search term, above Lindsay Lohan, the BP Oil Spill or the death of George Steinbrenner. What’s more, the viewcount grew by nearly 100,000 in that same single day, demonstrating the accelerated attention the film has been receiving. Further, as a result of topping the online trends charts, dozens of fresh reviews in online papers and blogs were published, including Blue Star Chronicles, Mahoo News and Live Street Journal.

As Paul Joseph Watson has recently observed, the lights are going out for free speech on the Internet. But the best defense against such strong attempts to censor and control the web, is to fight back with a full offensive. The same activists who’ve made The Obama Deception one of the most viewed online films of all time, and who’ve driven its name into the top of search trends can once again demonstrate to the powers to be that we are a force of significant numbers. Make it clear that we will never stop fighting and that we will see that this powerful film– and so many other activist tools– aren’t shut down, and instead are spread everywhere into the physical and virtual world.

Game is over. In 2009 US-debt (55 Trillion Dollars) matched with GWP (Gross World Product, 58 Trillion). It is incomprehensible but true: America’s total money supply (M3) is around $15 trillion while the US national and private debt total around $55 trillion. How is America paying an existing $55 trillion in debt with a total of $15 trillion money supply? The US is short $40 trillion only this year. Where will that money come from?

We have to keep in mind that the GDP includes the mad loans to the private sector and the so-called bail-out of Wall Street fraudsters. Thus, the GDP figures do not reflect real economic growth. If you keep your eye on the M3 numbers, you will see that the gap between M3 and the total debt number equals an inevitable dollar collapse.

Societe Generale's uber-bear Albert Edwards said the Fed and other central banks will be forced to print more money whatever they now say, given the "stinking fiscal mess" across the developed world. "The response to the coming deflationary maelstrom will be additional money printing that will make the recent QE seem insignificant," he said. (Telegraph, London, 27.06.2010)

The Tea Party, much like country music, evangelical Christianity, and the Republican Party, fits Ellison Lodge’s description of a movement whose identity is implicitly white and yet whose rhetoric is explicitly non-racial or multiculturalist. The overwhelming majority of Tea Party participants (I’d say 90-95 percent) are white people. The Tea Party leadership, however, has bent over backwards to put colorful African-American entertainers and advocates of free-markets up on stage at every rally, each new one more embarrassing than the last.

When I first heard about this latest controversy, I predicted that, at best, the Tea Party would react as it did against Olbermann and, at worst, it’d stage public hand-wringing and ritual denunciations and become the latest organization to pay a yearly tithe to Diversity Inc. by hiring various anti-racist councilors, consultants, and experts.

I was wrong. The Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams came out swinging: he dismissed the NAACP as a group simply out to get federal goodies and set-asides for blacks, and on Friday he issued a blog in which he satirizes NAACP “colored person” Ben Jealous writing to Abraham Lincoln. Despite the awkwardness of the piece, Williams gets at something real.

Liberals sense this reality about the welfare state, even though they rarely articulate it, and this is why any forthright call to dismantle the federal government -- no matter how rhetorically colorblind -- will automatically be labeled “racist.”

President Barack Obama was marketed to America as the magic cure for its racial divisions. But in my book America’s Half-Blood Prince Barack Obama’s "Story Of Race And Inheritance", based on a close study of Obama’s own much-purchased, little-read autobiography Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, I argued that Obama was in fact fundamentally motivated by race and that some people, probably his credulous white supporters, were in for a big surprise.

This is exactly what has happened. Obama has proved racially divisive both for implicit and explicit reasons. Eighteen months into his Presidency, the races are farther apart in their views of him than when he came to office.

Here are Obama’s Gallup Poll approval ratings every week since his Inauguration:

White disenchantment with Obama appears to have set in during the warm weather months of 2009—about the time of Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (May 26, 2009); the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Sotomayor’s ruling in the Ricci case (June 29, 2009); and the ludicrous damage-controlling “Beer Summit” featuring Professor Henry Louis Gates and an Obama-dissed Cambridge, MA police officer, James Crowley (July 22-30, 2009).

Since the end of summer 2009, Obama’s staffers, such as the cynical Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel, have worked diligently to keep their boss from alarming whites with obvious racial gaffes—as when he responded frankly to the Henry Louis Gates question at one of his rare press conferences. Obama’s rating among whites has continued to trickle downward, but at a less catastrophic rate.

Well-known author of three #1 national Christian bestsellers, including the landmark bestselling book, Dark Secrets of the New Age, Texe Marrs has also written over 42 other books for such major publishers as Simon & Schuster, John Wiley, Prentice Hall/Arco, Stein & Day, and Dow Jones-Irwin. His books have sold over two million copies and have been published in many foreign languages, including Turkey, Greece, Romania, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. His books have been featured as main selections of the Christian Book Club, the Conservative Book Club, and the Computer and Electronics Book Clubs.

Texe Marrs was assistant professor of aerospace studies, teaching American Defense Policy, strategic weapons systems, and related subjects at the University of Texas at Austin from 1977 to 1982. He has also taught international affairs, political science, and psychology for two other universities. A graduate Summa Cum Laude from Park University, Kansas City, Missouri, he earned his Master’s degree at North Carolina State University.

As a career USAF officer (now retired), he commanded communications-electronics and engineering units. He holds a number of military decorations, including the Vietnam Service Medal and the Presidential Unit Citation., and served in Germany, Italy, and throughout Asia. He was chosen Airman of the Year while serving in Korat Air Base, Thailand.

President of Power of Prophecy Ministries and RiverCrest Publishing in Austin, Texas, Texe Marrs is a frequent guest on radio and TV talk shows throughout the U.S.A. and Canada in response to the public’s search for greater insight into Bible prophecy, secret societies, politics, and world affairs. His latest books are Codex Magica: Secret Signs, Mysterious Symbols, and Hidden Codes of the Illuminati, Mysterious Monuments: Encyclopedia of Secret Illuminati Designs, Masonic Architecture, and Occult Places and the highly acclaimed Conspiracy World: a Truthteller’s Compendium of Eye-Opening Revelations and Forbidden Knowledge.

As I was turning on TV earlier in the week (my wife keeps the set permanently on FOX), I heard Glenn Beck complaining about the Black Panthers. Viewers were then shown a picture of a presumed Klansman in a truck carrying a noose. Supposedly this is what the Black Panthers were planning to do, by looking tough in the presence of approaching voters near a polling station in Philadelphia. Beck then began screaming about how we were ceasing to judge people by “the content of their character,” a reference to the government’s failure to take action against the Panthers’ interference with voting procedures. For the next five minutes Beck dwelled on the idea that “Dr. King gave his life to prevent this from happening.” Indeed King, who had spent his life bearing witness to the truth, would be truly upset to see “how we’ve blown his legacy.”

Three observations are in order here. One, there is nothing in what the Panthers were doing that looked as they were planning a lynching. It’s not even clear that the white guy shown earlier was about to engage in the same quaint custom. Two, I couldn’t imagine that the real MLK would have been entirely unhappy with what Beck disapproved of. King favored all kinds of favors and set asides for his race and would undoubtedly have been delighted with a lopsided black voting majority in Philadelphia or anywhere else that brought his soulmates to power.

An isolated phrase from King’s “I Have a Dream” speech admittedly reveals very little about the speaker’s leftist politics, but perhaps Beck could bestir himself to notice what else King said and wrote. Perhaps Beck could even be induced to stop quoting that magic line that he uses in his monologues once he discovers more about King. But then perhaps he shouldn’t. If he keeps on long enough with his drippy routine while inventing new black founding fathers, he may achieve a victory of sorts, by lifting the GOP’s share of the black vote from 2 to 2.1 percent. But I certainly won’t listen to him as he engages in this Herculean task.

Three, I can’t figure out what makes Beck congenial to a rightwing movement, if that is an accurate description of his followers. Most of what he says is incoherent and except for nonstop invectives against the spendthrift government, he has exceedingly strange views for someone on the “far right.” He goes on and on about fascist dangers, lavishes extravagant praise on Martin Luther King, bewails America’s history of racism and gushes over designated minorities. Beck is particularly incensed against those who interfered with Radical Republican Reconstruction, and he has been skewering the late Robert Byrd since his passing for having hindered the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But when I ask self-described conservatives who is their favorite public figure, Beck’s name invariably comes up first.

WHILE SOME IN CONGRESS want to cut the military budget, Joe Lieberman, the “independent” Democratic senator who is supposed to represent Connecticut but seems to spend more time representing the Israeli lobby, continues to agitate for more war. In a recent public statement, Lieberman claims he has been told that the Pentagon is ready for war with Iran.

Ironically, Lieberman’s views were published only in The Jerusalem Post. Despite the fact that he was lobbying to commit our country to yet another war, his provocative threats were never aired in the mainstream press in Connecticut or in the nation’s capital.

As it is now, Iran’s program is legal. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under international law, Iran can develop a nuclear program as long as it is not for weapons purposes.

Compare that to Israel, which has never signed the global treaty and continues to maintain a secret nuclear weapons program that many estimates put at between 200 and 400 nuclear-armed missiles.

Despite this, the U.S. government continues to quietly hand Israel nuclear technology and armaments, evidenced by a recent joint U.S.-Israeli document leaked to the Israeli media, which shows new agreements have been made on nuclear weapons. This huge news item made headlines all over Israel, but a search of leading U.S. mainstream media outlets revealed the secret deal was never reported to American non-Jews

For the last decade, America has been shuffling its entire military, including hundreds of thousands of private contractors, in and out of the Middle East on little more than a “snipe hunt.” Time for a reality check. Iraq never attacked the US. Reports say Al Qaeda may have fewer than 30 men in Afghanistan. The Taliban has been asking for a cease fire for months. Turkey and Brazil negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran ending any possible threat, one we strangely, very strangely ignored. “Thermo-nuclear Israel’s” continual whining and manipulation is wearing thin. America’s economy, her Army and her suffering veterans demand an end to our Bush era phony war.

Iran isn’t the problem, it never was. Since the 1960s, America has been running interference for Israel’s territorial ambitions. They are now occupying part of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and what had been 4 million Muslim and Christian residents of Palestine are now 1.5 million Gaza detainees and 2.5 million refugees. Iran had already agreed to a proposal from Turkey and Brazil that would have gotten rid of any nuclear material that may have been used for a weapon, a “workable” deal that seems to have been opposed only because it is preventing a war that Israel wants.

What has really happened is that America has spun out of control with one “lobby” after another banding together into a phony political front that wants nothing but endless war. America’s most powerful lobby is the Israeli’s, myth makers and storytellers peddling biblical prophesy to the rednecks, terror scares to the American Jewish community that controls over 40% of the nation’s wealth and “Islamophobia” to the rest of the country over the controlled news and entertainment industry. Do we begin to mention how our corrupt electoral process has made any honest discussion of this problem political suicide for any genuinely “American” candidate?

Has the United States established exactly what its strategic interests are in the region? Oil is flowing freely as is heroin. Money is flowing into the region by the plane load and back out, into banks in Dubai, Tel Aviv and Switzerland. Is $500 billion a year being spent to defend Israel from invasion by, well, we aren’t sure? This what is being spent to secure Israel, nearly one third of America’s entire budget. Wouldn’t it simply be cheaper to give Israel the United States or do they own it already?

Shahram Amiri, an Iranian scholar who returned home after being kidnapped by CIA in Saudi Arabia last year, said that Israeli agents interrogated him while he was in the US.

Amiri made the announcement while talking to reporters upon arrival at the International Imam Khomeini Airport in southern Tehran this morning.

Amiri, a university lecturer, was kidnapped in the holy Saudi city of Medina on June 3, 2009 during a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. He was abducted by US agents with the help of the Saudi intelligence service.

The Iranian scientist, who took refuge in Iran's interest section at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington on Tuesday, left the United States for Tehran Wednesday.

Amiri said he was under the harshest mental and physical tortures during the initial two months of his captivity in the US, adding that the US agents had threatened to transfer him to the Zionist regime's prisons if he refused to cooperate with them.

"I was kidnapped during a joint operation by the US and Saudi intelligence agents when I was in front of my hotel in the holy city of Medina. I was made unconscious and was transferred to unknown places first in Saudi Arabia and then in the US," he said.

Paul Gottfried and Sam Francis often pointed out how leftists use the banner of “conservatism” to promote left-wing causes. For instance, neoconservatives (who are really neo-Trotskyites) have used the banner of conservatism to promote nation building throughout the Middle East, universal human rights, egalitarianism, propositionalism, suicidal free trade policies, mass Third World immigration into the West, etc.

A more recent example of this phenomenon is the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal, an anti-Western organization promoting the destruction of the West under the banner of Edmund Burke. Under their programs page (which was recently mocked on a conservative email list and which I first thought was a satire on neoconservatism), here’s a taste from the NeoMarxist menu:

New Feminism: This program is designed to show how conservative principles affirm the fundamental rights, values and liberties of women; there is no contradiction between conservatism and feminism.

Yes, feminism is inherent in traditional modes of life ranging from Ancient Greece to Medieval Europe.

African Americans and Traditional Values: We seek to place the issues dear to African Americans at the forefront of political debate. This program will find solutions that are based on empowerment, independence and entrepreneurship. We celebrate the history and culture of African Americans and affirm their contributions to American society.